From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from toucan.tulip.relay.mailchannels.net (toucan.tulip.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.218.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A633D0908 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 22:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=23.83.218.254 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790892127; cv=none; b=tJceHxsQ9e99Vt9o9UA2Y0pr8zeX01hC77YLEaibRcD5aJCHenVX4mG0+zz2Y69pK6Wgjb3tzV65D3tWKr1XpvGSnABkTnJLc3QeNn/9hHWW4QzvZZqhmJ8vtgvW6FByq7Bgb099Y+DqBjky4nwq/Jbg6cDBGwXlXngPsMfCKpQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790892127; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OqQILaHd8RmCZZOv/wNthxALhCFTeqyHp/64164eYx8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lJ8nFU8vNDBiXpI6t5cOCjnFp0M6GX9TpYGsv2Qakpab04yQ1XM+72L3ehtaX6Ctvpl5Zd56LwbGtznyp/xKtThACQt3brS6m1ghdRKRkdN2QpzYANVS42vK6kjvDoT5dFD14yWalYNAn/36ubfTn/7etxVVYLM64ASaDu1E7B0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cryptonector.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cryptonector.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com header.i=@cryptonector.com header.b=ueA2pwcp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=23.83.218.254 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cryptonector.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cryptonector.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com header.i=@cryptonector.com header.b="ueA2pwcp" X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2A34C2AB3; Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a234.dreamhost.com (100-96-9-38.trex-nlb.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.9.38]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CBB8E4C0D0E; Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:35:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Tart-Zesty: 405a7d5939aee566_1790890530017_3656308450 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1790890530017:3473367550 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1790890530017 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a234.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.96.9.38 (trex/8.0.2); Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:35:30 +0000 Received: from ubby (unknown [24.28.102.31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a234.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4hwlZP2L84z103c; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 14:35:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; s=dreamhost; t=1790890525; bh=LO1FuEQs2tShW2oj3sVboUyYNl24EB64TLmbgKVOznk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Content-Type; b=ueA2pwcpvv/CapLoqTGFmz4FHXWJNbyZXD4n5tpWaqEIkvyvTd/i3ha8yiaV7Qkw1 K8Ikad8Dvox0bp8bmm8GSk83jm0hlSeP49QyP+BVgopsr08JCiGoedmPxiy5db5BVj pRrvvehvovkdtyruyvB7wYwPtF2ek8/vMRlKQgLWmGIcnEx+tqv5hdCvdUUZQYy4fW Gc1eqbR1oRTz0Wa2YuWYL6SHO4ImfQysuSmhZxMWnFG2aHuVKa8XkwqyQtzNljRqHq WEmcwemR7xqPSAGuyMRegwnIeWJBbpHHEEIHuDm4VDh9UvOsYRbiVxBUnuQN72gcWO 9sIgAmyTKQFqQ== Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 16:35:23 -0500 From: Nico Williams To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: git-rebase-walk Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 04:01:01PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > though.. it's fairly obvious Concisely: repeatedly try to rebase to the new base, then fall back on bisection to find the upstream commit that causes conflicts. `bisect-rebase` is kind of a misnomer, because the best-case behavior is O(1), and worst-case is O(N log N) when _every_ upstream commit introduces conflicts, whereas one would expect O(log N). Still, it's a reasonable name given the intent. Nico --